Ex Parte CoptyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 201513447220 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/447,220 04/15/2012 877 7590 IBM CORPORATION IP Law Department 294 Route 100 P.O. BOX 100 Somers, NY 10589-0100 12/21/2015 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shady Copty UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. IL920080216US2 2784 EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2015 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): iplawyor@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHADY COPTY Appeal2013-010256 Application 13/447,220 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-3, 11-15, and 23 (App. Br. 9). Claims 4-10 and 16-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Final Act 9). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appeal2013-010256 Application 13/447,220 The present invention relates generally to "database management systems," and more particularly "to testing database management systems." Spec. i12. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method performed by a processor, the method comprising: testing a database management system of a database by: generating in the database at least one data record based on a database query to the database management system, so that upon execution of the database query by the database management system the at least one data record is involved in processing the database query; performing the database query by the database management system, wherein operation of the database management system is affected by the database retaining the at least one data record; and whereby the database management system is tested with respect to the database query. Appellant appeals the following rejections: RI. Claims 1-3 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Arun (US 6,631,386 Bl, Oct. 7, 2003). R2. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arun and Bruno (US 2009/0327254 Al, Dec. 31, 2009). R3. Claims 12 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arun and Chordia (US 7 ,984,031 B2, July 19, 2011). 1 1 The rejection of Claim 12 as being unpatentable over Arun and Chordia is m error. Claim 12 claims dependency from claim 11, which stands rejected 2 Appeal2013-010256 Application 13/447,220 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to the Appellant's arguments. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the Arnn reference teaches performing the database query by the database management system (see claim 1 ). Here, the Examiner relies upon Arnn to describe the above noted feature (see Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds that Aron's "query is to [sic] enable a new record to be created in the database ... is similar to step 'generating"' and "query is to [sic] enable data from one or more records to be retrieved from the database ... is similar to step 'performing"' (see Ans. 3--4). We disagree with this interpretation. As identified by Appellant, the claimed invention "recite[s] the generation of the data record and the performance of a query as being based on a single query." App. Br. 12. Appeiiant contends "the claims expiicitiy recite the performing step as performing the database query (i.e., the same query recited for the generating step)." Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends that "there is nothing in the Arnn reference to indicate that a single query could perform both actions." App. Br. 12. We agree with Appellant. Specifically, Arnn describes: [T]he version control subsystem 11 initially receives a query from a user (step 100) and thereafter determines whether the query is to enable a new record to be created, to enable a record to be updated, to enable data from one or more records as being unpatentable over Arnn and Bruno. Claim 12 should be rejected as being unpatentable over Arnn, Bruno, and Chordia. 3 Appeal2013-010256 Application 13/447,220 to be retrieved or to enable a record to be deleted (step 101). If the version control subsystem 11 determines in step 101 that the query is to enable a new record to be created, the version control subsystem 11 generates an augmented query including information from the query received in step I 00, a version identifier identifying the version with which the user is operating, and a next version identifier comprising the default value (step 102) and provides the augmented query to the DBMS 12 for processing (step 103). Emphasis added; Arnn col. 11 11. 13-26. [I]f the version control subsystem 11 determines in that step that the query is to enable data from one or more records to be retrieved, the version control subsystem 11 performs operations similar to those described above to identify the particular row( s) 20(i) that contains the record version of each record for the version that the user is using. In those operations, the version control subsystem 11 generates one or more queries to enable the DBMS 12 to retrieve, for each record that would satisfy the query, data from the record version appropriate to the version for which the user wishes data to be retrieved (step 120), as described above in connection with step 110. Emphasis added; Arnn col. 12 11. 7-19. In other words, Arnn describes the subsystem receiving a query from a user, and then either generating an augmented query or generating one or more queries for the DBMS. As such, the query to Aron's subsystem is not the query that is sent from the subsystem to the DBMS for processing, but rather Aron's subsystem generates its own queries to send to the DBMS. The Examiner has not shown where Arnn describes that the query from the user to the subsystem and the queries sent from the subsystem to the DBMS are the same. Specifically, claim 1 recites "generating, in the database at least one data record based on a database query to the database management system, 4 Appeal2013-010256 Application 13/447,220 so that upon execution of the database query by the database management system the at least one data record is involved in processing the database query" and ''performing the database query by the database management system, wherein operation of the database management system is affected by the database retaining the at least one data record" and "wherein the databased management system is tested with respect to the database query" (see claim 1 ). Contrary to the claimed database query, Arnn describes a query to the subsystem and different subsystem-generated queries to the DBMS. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Aron's query to enable a new record or query to enable data from one or more records to be retrieved from the database describes the claimed database query. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments. Accordingiy, we wiH not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-3 and 13-15, and we will also not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 11, 12, and 23 for similar reasons. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 11-15, and 23 is reversed. REVERSED kme 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation